Today is not about the recovery of the Gulf Coast, not really. Because even though one year later, the “job of clearing debris left by the storm remains unfinished, and has been plagued by accusations of price gouging,” and even though one year later, “tens of thousands of families still live in trailers or mobile homes, with no indication of when or how they will be able to obtain permanent housing,” and even though one year later, “important decisions about rebuilding and improving flood defenses have been delayed” and “little if anything has been done to ensure the welfare of the poor in a rebuilt New Orleans,” and even though one year later, huge numbers of people are still displaced, the president doesn’t believe in the significance of this anniversary, or pointing to it in urgency to get local and state officials, who he blames for the delays in rebuilding, to get things done. What today is really about is the recovery of Bush’s image.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what — exactly — did the press do wrong in covering the Karr story? Beyond, I mean, devoting "too much" attention to it? If the story turned out to be true and Karr was the guy, no one, or almost no one, would be saying that it was overplayed. So is the problem that the media didn't know the news in advance? I'm open to the idea that the press spent too much time on the story, but I don't think it's anything like an embarrassment or a scandal that they spent a lot of time on it. Considering how crappy the Katrina thumbsucking is, I'd certainly rather watch CNN covering the Jon Benet Story than listen to Anderson Cooper frown. I mean it's not like there is any news in Katrina coverage.